with the poll entitled "How Many Websites Do You Build Per Year" I'm hoping to learn how many sites people make per year.

But without any context, that information isn't much use, is it? If someone says they only build one site per year, how useful is it to know that without any more information? You can't really conclude anything from that information without further information about the person's circumstances. Perhaps they work as a brick layer, for example, and just for fun sit down once per year to put up a simple site as a hobby. Without that kind of context, you could conclude that, on average, people only create one site per year.

Anyhow, I don't mean to criticise, but was asking in case this was for some kind of research project—in which case, you'd need a more thorough survey.

Is that because that is where the market seems to be? Or rather is it out of preference?

Nope, has nothing to do with the market. It's just the way I roll

The "market" can be a big place with a lot of niches, so market indicators in one area are not indicative of what another area is like.

And like Ralph is saying, if you intend this to be just a fun informal survey and discussion, that's perfectly fine. But if you intend to gather any sort of hard data off of this, it will effectively be useless since everyone's answer will be entirely subjective.

It depends what you mean by websites but I was coding approx 3 new templates a week last year for various clients and each one was eventually a new website (except that I just built the main html.css template only and then handed it over).

It is like building a website every day.(If you are taking off holidays from the equation that is)

Well I'm trying to get a feel for how many people are building websites as a business and how many sites that business makes per yer. For the larger amount sof sites per year I'm assuming those people would have several staff helping with building the client websites.

The problem with this question ( assuming you had 100% client saturation and could work continuously) is what SCOPE is implied by 'a site'? The word 'site' does not equate properly with the amount of time/labor necessary ( even if you also assume a cooperative client)

For how many of these are you doing art direction/branding

How many ( poorly done) photoshop mock ups and no slicing?

How many well done photoshop mock ups + slicing ?

How many HTML/CSS wireframes ?

How many responsive designs and how many of these require new graphics per each?

How HTML/CSS landing page/ templates?

How HTML/CSS template variations?

FLASH???

How many of these need some silly custom ( or customizing of) widgets or UX/UI effects requiring javascript

Whats the min cross browser support (I still get indirectly asked for IE5/6, safari 2..etc)

How many PHP dynamic templates , and are these for a CMS(WP, joomla, drupal, etc)?

If the site is not dynamic, how many pages ( assuming the same template is used on all pages.. and even that is a big if)

How many DBs are you setting up,( SQL for example)

How many of those DB also serve other functions (ie, if the client likes generating a xmas mailing lists from site visitors..ect) ?

For how many of those are writing content?

For How man of those Are you taking photos of content yourself????

Link building

Social integration

etc...

With such a broad spectrum of quality and scope available.. it's hard to see how a raw number of sites per year could be useful in real , or even academic, life.

I build about 10 Sites at this point. I am a new designer and hoping to improve the quality of those sites, not the amount of sites. I want to continue on this trajectory, charge more, and create more value with each site I build, and continue providing a useful ongoing subscription service.